Stay informed about NZ Employment law

Applicant: Benjamin James Fuller (employee)
Respondent: Super Cheap Auto (New Zealand) PTY Limited (employer)

Applicant: Lawrence Anderson, advocate
Respondent: Emma Crowley, counsel

Benjamin Fuller, a part-time retail employee at Super Cheap Auto, brought multiple unjustified disadvantage claims including challenges to a final written warning issued in December 2023, exclusion from a bonus scheme, alleged bullying, and inadequate investigation of his workplace concerns. The Authority found that the personal grievance relating to the final written warning was raised out of time and SCA had not consented to it being raised late. All remaining disadvantage claims were dismissed on their merits, and the penalty claim also failed.

Mr Fuller has been employed by Super Cheap Auto (SCA) as a Part-Time Retail Team Member since October 2022. In October 2023, he was observed mixing paint without required PPE and vaping in a non-designated area, leading to a formal disciplinary process. On 4 December 2023, SCA issued him a final written warning. In August/September 2024, SCA determined Mr Fuller was ineligible for a bonus (the "FY25 Reward Campaign") because his warning, less than 12 months old, constituted a recorded breach of the Code of Conduct; however, SCA later paid him the bonus in good faith after he raised the issue through his representative in November 2024. In February 2025, Mr Fuller lodged a Statement of Problem with the Authority raising grievances around the warning, bonus exclusion, and related matters; he later filed an amended SOP in June 2025 adding claims of bullying and inadequate investigation following a June 2025 conversation with his manager and a May 2025 team meeting. Mediation in July 2025 was unsuccessful, after which SCA conducted a workplace investigation and issued findings in October 2025.

1. Timeliness of Warning Grievance: Whether Mr Fuller raised his personal grievance relating to the final written warning within the 90-day statutory timeframe under s 114 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, and if not, whether SCA consented to it being raised out of time — [Dismissed]
2. Disadvantage Claim 1 – Issuing Warning: Whether the issuing of the final written warning constituted an unjustified action causing disadvantage — [Dismissed]
3. Disadvantage Claim 2 – Warning on Record: Whether SCA keeping the final written warning permanently on file unjustifiably disadvantaged Mr Fuller — [Dismissed]
4. Disadvantage Claim 3 – Bonus Exclusion: Whether SCA's initial decision to exclude Mr Fuller from the bonus constituted unjustified action causing disadvantage — [Dismissed]
5. Disadvantage Claim 4 – Bullying and Unreasonable Treatment: Whether Ms Escandor's conduct towards Mr Fuller (including discussion of staff complaints, reading out customer feedback, allowing colleagues to speak another language, and asking him to go home early) constituted unjustified action causing disadvantage — [Dismissed]
6. Disadvantage Claim 5 – Failure to Investigate: Whether SCA's investigation into Mr Fuller's workplace concerns was inadequate, one-sided or dismissive, amounting to unjustified disadvantage — [Dismissed]
7. Disadvantage Claim 6 – Refusal to Provide Investigation Information: Whether SCA's initial refusal or delay in providing information relating to the investigation caused unjustified disadvantage — [Dismissed]
8. Disadvantage Claim 7 – Refusal to Correct File Information: Whether SCA's maintenance of file notes and refusal to correct records on Mr Fuller's file constituted unjustified disadvantage — [Dismissed]
9. Penalty – Good Faith Breach: Whether SCA breached good faith obligations under s 4A(b)(iii) of the Act in a deliberate, serious, and sustained manner or in a manner intended to undermine the employment relationship, justifying a penalty under s 134 — [Dismissed]
10. Costs: Whether costs should be awarded and to whom — [Reserved]

1. Timeliness of Warning Grievance: Under s 114 of the ERA 2000, a personal grievance must be raised within 90 days of the act or the employee becoming aware of it, with late filing requiring employer consent. The Authority found Mr Fuller's December 2023 emails did not constitute raising a personal grievance — at most they sought reconsideration of the sanction — and his subsequent conduct was inconsistent with having raised a grievance. The first clear articulation of an unjustified disadvantage claim came in the 15 November 2024 correspondence, which was out of time. SCA had not expressly or impliedly consented to the late grievance, including by its later payment of the bonus. Accordingly, the Authority had no jurisdiction over grievances relating to the warning process or the warning itself.
2. Disadvantage Claim 1 – Issuing Warning: Determined in the alternative, in case the Authority's timeliness finding was wrong. Applying the test of what a fair and reasonable employer would do, the Authority found SCA was entitled to bring disciplinary proceedings where an earlier informal response had been deemed inadequate, and the final written warning was proportionate given the health and safety issues involved, the clear policies in place, and Mr Fuller's own admissions.
3. Disadvantage Claim 2 – Warning on Record: Mr Fuller argued the warning's permanent retention on file caused anxiety about future employment. The Authority found he had been made aware by mid-2025 (and through SCA's updated July 2025 policy) that the warning would not be used for disciplinary escalation purposes after 12 months. Mr Fuller confirmed this understanding, and no actual disadvantage from the warning's continued existence on file was shown. SCA's retention of the record was justified.
4. Disadvantage Claim 3 – Bonus Exclusion: The Authority found that Mr Fuller's narrow interpretation of the bonus eligibility criteria was incorrect — his final written warning expressly recorded a Code of Conduct breach, which was the relevant disqualifying criterion. No evidence showed SCA disclosed Mr Fuller's bonus status to colleagues, and any embarrassment from discussions with colleagues was not shown to be caused by SCA's conduct. In any event, SCA's later payment of the bonus was sufficient to rectify the concern, and SCA's actions were justified.
5. Disadvantage Claim 4 – Bullying and Unreasonable Treatment: The Authority found it was appropriate for Ms Escandor to discuss staff complaints with Mr Fuller and noted Mr Fuller himself conceded some concerns may have been legitimate. No disciplinary outcome followed the conversation. The evidence did not establish Mr Fuller was named in the customer feedback meeting. The language issue had improved following management reminders. Mr Fuller acknowledged he had voluntarily gone home early on occasion. None of these matters were shown to constitute unjustified disadvantage.
6. Disadvantage Claim 5 – Failure to Investigate: Mr Poiner conducted a fair process: he invited Mr Fuller to provide information, commissioned a senior person to investigate, gathered witness evidence, gave Mr Fuller opportunities to clarify matters, and issued findings. While there was some inadvertent delay, Mr Fuller acknowledged at the investigation meeting that the issues had become less prevalent since the outcome was issued. The Authority accepted this was not the response of someone disadvantaged by an inadequate investigation, and SCA's actions were justified.
7. Disadvantage Claim 6 – Refusal to Provide Investigation Information: Mr Fuller provided no evidence of actual disadvantage from SCA's initial withholding of investigation information. Mr Poiner's initial hesitation was based on perceived confidentiality obligations, and the information was provided within the statutory Privacy Act 2020 timeframe once that framework was invoked. The claim was unsupported by evidence and no disadvantage was established.
8. Disadvantage Claim 7 – Refusal to Correct File Information: Raised only in closing submissions, the Authority noted Mr Fuller retained the right to request correction of his personal information if he wished. Mr Poiner had clarified that file notes are informal and non-disciplinary in nature; the escalation in this case was an exception that occurred promptly after the initial event. The Authority found the submission that file notes could be relied upon in future discipline causing emotional harm was not a reasonable inference from the evidence.
9. Penalty – Good Faith Breach: Under s 4A(b)(iii) of the Act, a penalty requires a deliberate, serious, and sustained breach of good faith, or conduct intended to undermine the employment relationship. Since no good faith breaches were established across any of Mr Fuller's claims, no basis for a penalty existed and the claim was declined.
10. Costs: Costs were reserved. The parties were encouraged to resolve costs between themselves. If not resolved, SCA may file a memorandum on costs within 28 days, with Mr Fuller having 14 days to respond.

All of Mr Fuller's personal grievance claims and penalty claims were dismissed in full; the determination was entirely in favour of SCA.

None ordered. Costs reserved pending further submissions.

Applicant: Timothy Osbaldiston (employee)
Respondent: Primehort Distributors Limited (employer)

Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Robert Thompson, advocate for the Respondent

Timothy Osbaldiston brought a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal following his redundancy from Primehort Distributors Limited (PDL) in March 2025. PDL argued the grievance was barred because the parties had reached an accord and satisfaction through email correspondence on 20 March 2025. The Authority rejected PDL's argument, finding no genuine dispute had arisen at the time of the email exchange and that Mr Osbaldiston had not accepted the subsequent full and final settlement offer.

Mr Osbaldiston was employed by PDL from 20 September 2023 until 28 March 2025, initially as an operations/project assistant and then, from around 10 February 2025, in a telesales role. On 17 March 2025, PDL issued a redundancy notice effective 28 March 2025, which also offered Mr Osbaldiston the option to leave earlier (21 March 2025) in exchange for one month's pay in lieu of notice. On 20 March 2025, Mr Osbaldiston emailed PDL accepting the "1 month's pay in lieu" and confirmed he would not be physically present at work through to 28 March 2025. Later that same day, PDL sent a formal "redundancy package" letter offering five weeks' pay in lieu with a full and final release of all claims — Mr Osbaldiston did not sign or accept this letter. Mr Osbaldiston subsequently raised a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal, which PDL sought to block on the basis that accord and satisfaction had already been reached.

1. Accord and Satisfaction: Whether the parties settled Mr Osbaldiston's personal grievance for unjustified dismissal on the basis of accord and satisfaction, thereby barring him from pursuing his claim — [Dismissed]

1. Accord and Satisfaction: The Authority applied the established legal principles from Clearkin v Geneva Healthcare Limited [2019] NZEmpC 174, Harris v Birchwood Farm Holdings Limited [2002] NZEmpC 124, and Graham v Crestline Pty Limited [2006] NZEmpC 848, requiring (i) a genuine dispute to exist, and (ii) a meeting of minds — or conduct inducing the other party to believe a payment is taken in satisfaction of the claim. The Authority found that Mr Osbaldiston's email acceptance on 20 March 2025 related only to PDL's earlier offer of one month's pay in lieu of notice and early departure — not a settlement of any grievance — because no genuine dispute had yet arisen between the parties at that point. The subsequent redundancy package letter, which contained additional terms including a full and final release, constituted a new and separate offer that Mr Osbaldiston did not sign or accept. Accordingly, the Authority rejected PDL's accord and satisfaction argument and held that Mr Osbaldiston may proceed with his personal grievance.

The preliminary issue was determined in the applicant's favour: Mr Osbaldiston's personal grievance for unjustified dismissal was not settled by accord and satisfaction and may proceed to a substantive investigation meeting.

None ordered at this stage (preliminary determination only). A case management conference is to be convened to progress the substantive claim. Costs are reserved.

[COSTS ONLY]

Applicant: HealthAlliance N.Z. Limited (employer) [Applicant in 3316900; Respondent in 3322300/3352600]
Respondent: Garth Cunningham (employee) [Respondent in 3316900; Applicant in 3322300/3352600]

Applicant: Richard Upton, counsel for HealthAlliance N.Z. Ltd
Respondent: Garth Cunningham (Self-represented)

This is a costs-only determination arising from earlier proceedings in which Mr Cunningham successfully obtained a reopening of a prior Authority determination. Mr Cunningham, who was self-represented, sought $400 in costs (including the $153.33 filing fee). The Authority declined to award the full amount but ordered reimbursement of the filing fee only, consistent with its usual practice not to award costs to unrepresented parties who incurred no representation fees.

Mr Cunningham was an employee of HealthAlliance N.Z. Limited, a company providing specialist IT services to northern district health boards (now subsumed under Health New Zealand Te Whatu Ora). In earlier proceedings (Cunningham v HealthAlliance NZ Ltd [2026] NZERA 159), the Authority granted Mr Cunningham's application to reopen a prior determination and declined his removal application. The parties were unable to resolve costs between themselves and filed submissions. Mr Cunningham, having represented himself throughout, sought $400 inclusive of the $153.33 filing fee, noting a without-prejudice-save-as-to-costs offer had been made but rejected without counteroffer by HealthAlliance. HealthAlliance submitted that $400 was not justified for a self-represented litigant but indicated it was not economic to contest the point.

1. Costs to Self-Represented Party: Whether Mr Cunningham, as a successful but self-represented litigant who incurred no representation fees, is entitled to a costs award beyond reimbursement of the filing fee — [Dismissed]
2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: Whether Mr Cunningham is entitled to reimbursement of the Authority's filing fee — [Established]

1. Costs to Self-Represented Party: The Authority applied the principles from PBO Ltd (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] ERNZ 808 (confirmed in Fagotti v Acme & Co Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 135), which include that costs generally follow the event, awards are modest, and conduct unnecessarily increasing costs may be taken into account. While Mr Cunningham succeeded in the reopening application, the Authority noted it is not its usual practice to award costs to parties who have not incurred representation fees. The Authority found no basis to depart from that approach and declined to award the broader $400 sought.
2. Filing Fee Reimbursement: The Authority determined that Mr Cunningham was entitled to be reimbursed for the filing fee paid in the removal matter. HealthAlliance was ordered to pay $153.33 within 28 days of the determination date.

The claim for costs was partially upheld — the filing fee reimbursement of $153.33 was ordered, but the broader costs award sought was dismissed.

Filing fee reimbursement: $153.33 (to be paid by HealthAlliance to Mr Cunningham within 28 days). No further costs awarded.

Applicant: Fiona Scott (employee)
Respondent: Ritchies Transport Holdings Limited (employer)

Applicant: James Sawers, counsel for the applicant
Respondent: William Henriksen, for the respondent

Fiona Scott worked as a casual charter bus driver for Ritchies Transport Holdings Limited from December 2022, but the Authority found that her employment had evolved into permanent employment by the time shifts ceased in approximately March–April 2024. The Authority upheld her unjustified dismissal claim, finding that Ritchies deliberately stopped scheduling her shifts without justification or process, but dismissed her unjustified disadvantage claim in relation to a first written warning issued after a disciplinary incident. Scott was awarded $10,000 compensation for hurt and humiliation and $12,870 in lost wages (three months' ordinary time remuneration).

Fiona Scott signed a casual employment agreement with Ritchies on 13 December 2022 to work as a Charter Driver, though approximately 90% of her actual shifts were on urban bus routes. She worked consistently and extensively over approximately 15 months, averaging well over 80 hours per fortnight in the latter part of her employment, and rarely declined shifts. In December 2023, Scott declined an offer of permanent employment, stating she valued the flexibility of casual work, but from early 2024 her hours were reduced — a response Ritchies connected to her not accepting permanent employment. On 23 March 2024, Scott deviated from her bus route to use the toilet at home and check on pets, leading to a disciplinary process resulting in a first written warning on 5 April 2024. Around 30 March 2024, two scheduled shifts were removed from her roster and, from that point onwards, Scott received no further shifts; in July 2024 she was deactivated from the rostering app entirely. Scott raised a personal grievance alleging unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage regarding the warning.

1. Employment Status: Was Ms Scott a casual employee or had her employment evolved into permanent employment at the time shifts ceased? — (Established: permanent employment found)
2. Unjustified Dismissal: Did Ritchies' cessation of scheduling shifts constitute an unjustified dismissal under s 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000? — (Established)
3. Unjustified Disadvantage: Did the issuing of the first written warning constitute an unjustified action causing disadvantage? — (Dismissed)
4. Admissibility of Post-Hearing Evidence: Should the post-investigation-meeting email from Ritchies' HR Business Partner (Mr Henriksen) regarding shift acceptance be admitted and relied upon? — (Dismissed: disregarded)
5. Lost Wages Remedy: What three-months' ordinary time remuneration should be awarded under ss 123 and 128 of the Act? — (Established)
6. Compensation for Hurt and Humiliation: What compensation should be awarded under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act? — (Established)
7. Contribution: Did Ms Scott's own actions contribute to the situation giving rise to the personal grievance, warranting a reduction under s 124? — (Dismissed: no reduction)
8. Costs: What costs, if any, should be awarded? — (Reserved)

1. Employment Status: The Authority applied the test of the "real nature of the relationship" under s 6(2) of the Act, recognising that employment status can evolve over time (applying Jinkinson v Oceana Gold (NZ) Limited [2009]). The Authority examined multiple factors: the regularity, consistency and volume of Scott's hours (averaging over 80 hours per fortnight in the latter period); the rostering practice of issuing shifts two weeks in advance that were treated as automatically accepted unless declined; the high proportion of urban (not charter) shifts; and Ritchies' own internal acknowledgement (via the Director of People) that regular hours on a casual agreement were "illegal." The Authority concluded that Scott was a permanent employee in all but name, and that her declining the formal permanent employment offer did not undermine this objective assessment.
2. Unjustified Dismissal: The Authority applied the s 103A test (what would a fair and reasonable employer do in all the circumstances). The Authority found that from approximately 30 March 2024 Scott received no further shifts, and inferred from the timing — contemporaneous with the disciplinary process — that cessation was deliberate rather than the result of technical or operational issues. The dismissal lacked substantive justification (no valid reason such as serious misconduct or redundancy) and no process whatsoever was followed. The Authority found the dismissal unjustified on both substantive and procedural grounds.
3. Unjustified Disadvantage: The Authority considered whether the first written warning was procedurally and substantively fair. Procedurally, Ritchies was entitled to escalate from an investigation meeting to a disciplinary meeting (provided it notified Scott, which it did), and it gave Scott the opportunity to respond and genuinely considered her explanations. Substantively, the Authority found the warning reasonable: Scott should have understood from the Code of Conduct that using a company bus for personal reasons (driving home) could constitute misuse of company property, and she also bypassed the final two stops of her route. Disparity of treatment was not established due to lack of evidence. The disadvantage claim was dismissed.
4. Admissibility of Post-Hearing Evidence: The post-meeting email from Mr Henriksen (Ritchies' HR Business Partner) describing how shifts were made available via the App was disregarded entirely because Henriksen was not a sworn witness, his evidence could not be tested, and he was not employed by Ritchies during the relevant period.
5. Lost Wages Remedy: Sections 123 and 128 of the Act require the Authority to award the lesser of actual lost remuneration and three months' ordinary time remuneration. The Authority calculated Scott's average weekly hours across the full employment period as 33 hours, at a predominant ordinary time rate of $30.00/hour, yielding $12,870 gross (33 × $30 × 13 weeks). Though Scott sought less than this statutory minimum, the Authority was obliged by s 128(2) to award the statutory minimum. The Authority noted that reimbursement of any Work and Income benefit payments was a separate matter for Scott to resolve with MSD (Hutchison v Nelson City Council [2014]).
6. Compensation for Hurt and Humiliation: Under s 123(1)(c)(i), the Authority assessed the distress Scott visibly exhibited during the Investigation Meeting, loss of dignity, injury to feelings, and the shock caused by the abrupt cessation of shifts — acknowledged even by Mr Gordon. Scott sought $10,000, which the Authority found moderate and appropriate, and awarded the full amount claimed.
7. Contribution: The Authority considered s 124 and found that Scott's own conduct did not contribute to the situation giving rise to the personal grievance (i.e. the unjustified dismissal). No reduction was applied.
8. Costs: Costs were reserved. The parties were encouraged to resolve costs between themselves. If unable to do so, Scott may lodge a memorandum on costs within 28 days, with Ritchies given 14 days to reply. Costs, if determined by the Authority, would be assessed on the standard daily tariff basis.

The claim was partially upheld: the unjustified dismissal grievance was established and remedies awarded; the unjustified disadvantage grievance (first written warning) was dismissed.

- Lost wages (three months' ordinary time remuneration): $12,870 (gross) — calculated at 33 hours/week × $30.00/hour × 13 weeks
- Compensation (hurt, humiliation and injury to feelings, s 123(1)(c)(i)): $10,000
- Contributory reduction: None applied (no contribution found)
- Reinstatement: Not ordered
- Penalties: None ordered
- Costs: Reserved (parties encouraged to resolve between themselves; memorandum process prescribed if not resolved)
- Payment deadline: Within 28 days of the determination date

[CONSENT]

Applicant: KZD (employee)
Respondent: SHX (employer)

Applicant: D Kim, advocate
Respondent: S Liu and A Meng, counsel

The parties resolved their employment relationship dispute on their own terms during the investigation meeting. By consent, the agreed terms have been incorporated as orders of the Authority. The names of the parties and the terms of the resolution are suppressed by order under the Employment Relations Act 2000.

The nature of the underlying employment relationship problem is not disclosed in the determination. The matter proceeded to an investigation meeting on 2 and 3 June 2026. During that investigation, the parties reached a private settlement on their own terms. The parties jointly requested that the settlement terms be given the force of an Authority order, and also sought confidentiality over the parties' identities and the terms of resolution. No costs issue arose between the parties.

1. Consent Order: Whether the agreed settlement terms should be made orders of the Authority — [Established]
2. Non-Publication Order: Whether publication of the parties' names and settlement terms should be prohibited under clause 10 of the Second Schedule of the Employment Relations Act 2000 — [Established]

1. Consent Order: At the parties' joint request, the Authority incorporated their privately agreed settlement terms as orders of the Authority. A signed record of those terms is held on the Authority file. No merits determination was made.
2. Non-Publication Order: The Authority was satisfied, on the information before it, that a non-publication order was appropriate. Under clause 10 of the Second Schedule of the Employment Relations Act 2000, the Member prohibited publication of the parties' names and all or any part of the settlement terms, except where necessary for enforcement purposes.

The matter was resolved by consent, with the settlement terms made orders of the Authority and confidentiality suppressing the parties' identities and terms.

The specific terms of the remedy are suppressed by non-publication order and are not disclosed in the determination. No costs were ordered.

Applicant: Cameron Keen (employee)
Respondent: Prestige Paving NZ Limited (employer)

Applicant: Dee Peteerson and Hayley Johnson, advocates
Respondent: No appearance

Cameron Keen worked as a labourer for Prestige Paving NZ Limited from August 2024 until his employment ended in disputed circumstances in February 2025, after his employer effectively abandoned the business and ceased communicating with him. The Authority found that Prestige unjustifiably disadvantaged and constructively dismissed Mr Keen by failing to pay him, unilaterally placing him on leave without pay, and ceasing communication. Mr Keen was awarded a total of $36,016.82 in compensation, lost wages, holiday pay, and costs.

Cameron Keen was employed as a labourer by Prestige Paving NZ Limited from 5 August 2024, initially paid cash at $20/hour before a written employment agreement was signed providing for the minimum wage of $23.15/hour. The company closed for the Christmas period on 13 December 2024, with workers told to return on 6 January 2025. The sole active director, Jason Devine, went to Australia and was involved in a car accident on 5 January 2025, advising he would be absent for 6–8 weeks, but failed to respond to Mr Keen's questions about whether he and other workers would be stood down. Prestige then unilaterally imposed leave without pay on Mr Keen from 14 February 2025, without his request, and Mr Keen saw an advertisement suggesting Devine was pursuing work in Australia. Mr Keen raised a personal grievance on 17 March 2025 through an advocate, asserting unjustified dismissal or constructive dismissal from 14 February 2025; Prestige did not engage in the grievance process, mediation, or the Authority investigation. Prestige is no longer trading and its directors are believed to be residing in Australia.

1. Unjustified Disadvantage: Whether Prestige's actions and omissions — including non-payment of wages, unilateral imposition of leave without pay, and failure to communicate — constituted unjustified disadvantage under the Employment Relations Act 2000 — [Established]
2. Unjustified (Constructive) Dismissal: Whether Prestige's failure to provide ongoing employment and effective communication from 6 January 2025 amounted to an unjustified dismissal — [Established]
3. Breach of s 67C (Employment Agreement): Whether the employment agreement breached s 67C of the Act by failing to specify guaranteed hours, days of work, and start/finish times — [Established]
4. Compensation (Hurt, Humiliation, Distress): Whether Mr Keen was entitled to compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act and, if so, in what amount — [Established]
5. Lost and Unpaid Wages: Whether Mr Keen was entitled to reimbursement of unpaid wages (6 January–14 February 2025) and lost wages (13 weeks post-dismissal) under s 123(1)(b) of the Act — [Established]
6. Holiday Pay: Whether holiday pay was owing on the lost and unpaid wages — [Established]
7. Penalties: Whether the Authority should impose penalties on Prestige for failure to keep/provide wage and time records, failure to pay wages when due, and failure to pay accrued annual leave — [Dismissed]
8. Contributory Conduct: Whether any remedy should be reduced under s 124 of the Act due to Mr Keen's contributory conduct — [Dismissed]
9. Costs: Whether Mr Keen was entitled to a costs contribution — [Established]

1. Unjustified Disadvantage: In the absence of any documentary evidence or engagement from Prestige, the Authority inferred that the employer's actions — non-payment during 6 January to 14 February 2025, unilateral imposition of leave without pay, and lack of ongoing communication — caused Mr Keen unjustified detriment. The Authority found Mr Keen was available for work and entitled to remuneration during this period. The grievance of unjustified disadvantage was established.
2. Unjustified (Constructive) Dismissal: The Authority found that Jason Devine's inaction as Prestige's director — ceasing remuneration and unilaterally imposing leave without pay — effectively brought the employment relationship to an end without valid reason or process. With no explanation from Prestige, the Authority concluded this constituted an unjustified dismissal effective from 14 February 2025.
3. Breach of s 67C (Employment Agreement): The Authority noted that the employment agreement contravened s 67C of the Act because it failed to specify any guaranteed number of hours, the days on which work was to be performed, and the start and finish times of work. The schedule simply described hours as "Monday to Sunday, 24 Hours" and left the weekly hours field blank. This was recorded as a breach, though no separate penalty was ordered in connection with it.
4. Compensation (Hurt, Humiliation, Distress): Applying s 123(1)(c)(i), the Authority assessed that the dismissal dented Mr Keen's confidence and caused real, though transitory, distress and humiliation. Having regard to comparable cases (including the approach summarised in Richora Group Ltd v Cheng [2018] ERNZ 337), the Authority awarded $12,000 in compensation.
5. Lost and Unpaid Wages: Under s 123(1)(b), the Authority accepted Mr Keen's evidence, supported by payslips, that he averaged 44.93 hours per week at $23.15/hour. Unpaid wages for 6 January to 14 February 2025 were calculated at $5,939.14, and lost wages for 13 weeks post-dismissal at $13,521.68, totalling $19,460.82. The Authority accepted this combined figure as fair in all circumstances.
6. Holiday Pay: The Authority found holiday pay at 8% was payable on the total unpaid and lost wages amount of $19,460.82, amounting to $1,556.86.
7. Penalties: Despite Prestige's failures regarding wage and time records, timely wage payment, and annual leave payments, the Authority declined to impose penalties, without elaborating further reasons beyond noting the circumstances were not condoned.
8. Contributory Conduct: Applying the test in Maddigan v Director General of Conservation [2019] NZEmpC 190, the Authority found no factors indicating Mr Keen contributed to the manner in which his employment ended, and no reduction was made to remedies.
9. Costs: Given Prestige's non-participation in the proceedings and Mr Keen's success in obtaining significant remedies, the Authority exercised its discretion under s 14, Schedule 2 of the Act and awarded a $3,000 costs contribution to reflect preparation and attendance at the investigation meeting and submission preparation.

The claim was upheld in full: Mr Keen succeeded on both the unjustified disadvantage and unjustified dismissal grievances; the penalty claim was dismissed and no contributory reduction was applied.

- Compensation (hurt/humiliation/distress): $12,000 (s 123(1)(c)(i)), payable without deduction
- Unpaid and lost wages: $19,460.82 (s 123(1)(b)) (comprising $5,939.14 unpaid wages 6 Jan–14 Feb 2025 and $13,521.68 lost wages for 13 weeks post-dismissal)
- Holiday pay: $1,556.86 (8% on the wages amount)
- Costs contribution: $3,000
- Contributory reduction: None
- Penalties: None ordered
- Reinstatement: Not sought or ordered
- All amounts payable within 28 days of the determination

Applicant: Stephen Nunn (employee)
Respondent: Port Nicholson Fisheries LP (employer)

Applicant: Robert Morgan, advocate
Respondent: Jeremy Little

Stephen Nunn, a driver and process worker employed by Port Nicholson Fisheries LP (PNF) for approximately ten years, was dismissed without notice following two disciplinary investigations in quick succession concerning regulatory compliance failures. The Authority found both investigations were substantively and procedurally flawed, including a failure to genuinely consider Mr Nunn's explanations, failure to show him CCTV footage, an improperly initiated suspension, and no consideration of alternatives to dismissal. Mr Nunn's unjustified dismissal claim was upheld in full, with compensation of $20,000 for hurt and humiliation, three months' lost wages, four weeks' notice pay, and public holiday arrears ordered.

Mr Nunn commenced work in approximately June 2014 and signed a new individual employment agreement (IEA) with PNF after it took over the business in 2019; he was employed on a permanent basis with a minimum of 16 hours per week, working as a driver and process worker at the Tauranga Depot. On 26 March 2024, Mr Nunn — working alone due to the depot manager's resignation and another employee's absence — left an octopus in the depot freezer without completing the required electronic Tally data entry; PNF subsequently issued a final written warning on 4 June 2024 after an investigation meeting on 6 May 2024 at which Mr Nunn had not been forewarned of the nature of the meeting. On the same day as the final written warning, PNF notified Mr Nunn of a second investigation relating to a landing on 28 May 2024, suspended him without prior consultation, and on 12 June 2024 dismissed him summarily for serious misconduct. Mr Nunn argued he was not properly trained in the electronic Tally system, that local depot practice was for other staff to handle data entry, and that he was not shown the CCTV footage relied upon in the second investigation. PNF maintained that Mr Nunn held Licensed Fish Receiver (LFR) qualifications, was aware of relevant legal requirements, and that his failures exposed PNF to significant regulatory risk from the Ministry for Primary Industries. Mr Nunn separately claimed public holiday pay arrears for the period April 2022 to February 2023, which PNF disputed but partly acknowledged as an area of previous miscalculation.

1. Unjustified Dismissal: Whether PNF's decision to dismiss Mr Nunn and how it was carried out was what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances under s 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 — [Established]
2. First Investigation Procedural Fairness: Whether the first employment investigation (octopus incident) complied with natural justice requirements, including adequate notice, disclosure of allegations and evidence, and genuine consideration of Mr Nunn's explanations — [Established]
3. First Investigation Substantive Justification: Whether the finding of serious misconduct and issue of a final written warning arising from the first investigation was substantively justified — [Established (in favour of Mr Nunn — not justified)]
4. Second Investigation Procedural Fairness: Whether the second employment investigation (28 May 2024 landing) complied with natural justice requirements, including disclosure of CCTV footage, genuine consideration of explanations, and impartiality of decision-maker — [Established (in favour of Mr Nunn — not justified)]
5. Unlawful Suspension: Whether the suspension of Mr Nunn on 4 June 2024 without prior consultation complied with the IEA and general employment law principles — [Established (in favour of Mr Nunn — non-compliant)]
6. Failure to Consider Alternatives to Dismissal: Whether PNF considered alternatives to dismissal before terminating Mr Nunn's employment — [Established (in favour of Mr Nunn — not considered)]
7. Compensation (s 123(1)(c)(i)): What level of compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings is appropriate — [Established]
8. Lost Wages: Whether Mr Nunn is entitled to lost wages and the appropriate quantum — [Established]
9. Public Holiday Pay Arrears: Whether Mr Nunn is owed arrears for public holidays between April 2022 and February 2023 under the Holidays Act 2003 — [Established]
10. Notice Period Pay: Whether Mr Nunn is entitled to payment in lieu of his four-week notice period — [Established]
11. Contribution (s 124): Whether any remedies should be reduced due to Mr Nunn's contributory conduct — [Dismissed]
12. Costs: Whether costs should be awarded and, if so, in what amount — [Reserved]

1. Unjustified Dismissal: The Authority applied the s 103A objective test, asking whether PNF's actions were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all circumstances. Having found multiple procedural and substantive failures in both investigations (detailed below), the Authority concluded PNF's decision to dismiss was not one a fair and reasonable employer could have reached, and upheld the personal grievance.
2. First Investigation Procedural Fairness: Mr Nunn was invited to a meeting described to him merely as a "catch up" when PNF's own records show it was an investigation meeting. No written allegations were provided before the meeting. Evidence gathered from the Auckland depot manager was not disclosed to Mr Nunn. The Authority found these failures were more than minor procedural defects and that Mr Nunn was not given a genuine opportunity to respond to the actual concerns, including what appear to have been underlying performance concerns.
3. First Investigation Substantive Justification: Mr Nunn's explanations — that local practice was for the depot manager and other staff to handle data entry in Tally, that he was not trained in the Tally system (corroborated by an email from Ms Swales), that Ms Swales had recently resigned, and that octopus was typically sold locally rather than transported to Auckland — were not genuinely engaged with. The Authority noted that PNF's own compliance advisor had allowed Mr Nunn to purchase the octopus for bait, which undermined the seriousness PNF attributed to his conduct. The Authority held that without addressing these explanations, the finding of serious misconduct and the final written warning were not conclusions a fair and reasonable employer could reach.
4. Second Investigation Procedural Fairness: Mr Nunn was not shown the CCTV footage that formed the basis of the second investigation's findings, depriving him of a meaningful opportunity to respond. PNF again failed to genuinely engage with Mr Nunn's explanations about local practice. The same decision-maker (Mr Phipps) who had just issued the final written warning conducted the second investigation, creating an appearance of pre-determination. The Authority found the second investigation appeared pre-determined and that the process was not one a fair and reasonable employer could have followed.
5. Unlawful Suspension: The IEA expressly required consultation with the employee before any suspension. PNF suspended Mr Nunn on 4 June 2024 without prior consultation, in breach of cl 19 of the IEA. The Authority, citing E tū v Singh [2024] NZEmpC 84, confirmed the general requirement to give notice of a proposed suspension and seek the employee's views. This breach was an additional factor supporting the finding that PNF had not acted as a fair and reasonable employer.
6. Failure to Consider Alternatives to Dismissal: The Authority found there was no evidence PNF turned its mind to alternatives such as coaching, training, or a formal performance management plan. The decision to send Mr Nunn to LFR refresher training showed awareness of a competency issue but was not accompanied by structured support. A fair and reasonable employer was required to consider such alternatives before proceeding to dismissal.
7. Compensation (s 123(1)(c)(i)): Applying the band framework from GF v Comptroller of the New Zealand Customs Service [2023] NZEmpC 101, the Authority assessed the impact on Mr Nunn as falling within band two (mid-range). Mr Nunn had ten years' service, was 70 years old, felt humiliated and shocked by the sudden dismissal, suffered anxiety, and his ability to continue working was important to him both financially and for mental wellbeing. Taking into account the lack of alternatives considered and the manner of dismissal, the Authority awarded $20,000.
8. Lost Wages: Under s 123(1)(b) of the Act, lost wages are capped at three months' ordinary time remuneration. Mr Nunn had been unable to find alternative employment since his dismissal, which the Authority accepted on the basis of his age and the nature of the work he was willing to do. An award equivalent to three months' wages (inclusive of holiday pay and KiwiSaver) was ordered.
9. Public Holiday Pay Arrears: Under s 49 of the Holidays Act 2003, if a public holiday falls on an otherwise working day, the employee must receive not less than relevant daily pay or average daily pay. PNF had calculated public holiday pay inconsistently — using an 8-hour-day basis before April 2022 and after February 2023, but switching to a pro-rata basis in between. Since PNF had used an 8-hour day both before and after the disputed period, the Authority found Mr Nunn was entitled to the difference between the pro-rata amount paid and the 8-hour day rate for public holidays in the period April 2022 to February 2023.
10. Notice Period Pay: Mr Nunn was dismissed summarily and without notice. His IEA provided for four weeks' notice. Given the finding that the dismissal was unjustified and serious misconduct was not established, the summary dismissal was not warranted, and PNF was ordered to pay the equivalent of a four-week notice period.
11. Contribution (s 124): The Authority found that because PNF had not been in a position to substantively justify its findings of serious misconduct and its process was fundamentally flawed, Mr Nunn could not be said to have contributed to the situation giving rise to the personal grievance. No reduction was applied.
12. Costs: The Authority reserved costs and encouraged the parties to resolve costs between themselves. If agreement cannot be reached, Mr Nunn may file a memorandum on costs within 28 days of the determination, with PNF having 14 days to respond.

The claim was upheld in full: unjustified dismissal established, public holiday arrears claim established, and no contributory reduction applied.

- Compensation (humiliation, loss of dignity, injury to feelings under s 123(1)(c)): $20,000
- Lost wages: Amount equivalent to three months' wages (inclusive of holiday pay and KiwiSaver) — precise dollar figure not specified in the determination
- Notice period pay: Amount equivalent to four weeks' notice — precise dollar figure not specified
- Public holiday arrears: The difference between what Mr Nunn was paid on a pro-rata basis and what he would have been paid at an 8-hour-day rate for public holidays between April 2022 and February 2023 — precise dollar figure not specified
- Contributory reduction: None applied
- Reinstatement: Not ordered
- Penalties: None ordered
- Costs: Reserved

Applicant: Heather Howard (employee)
Respondent: Independent Timber Merchants Co-operative Limited (employer)

Applicant: Heather Howard (self-represented)
Respondent: Jin Park, Counsel for the Respondent

Heather Howard, a Data and Insights Analyst, brought claims of unjustified disadvantage (bullying and harassment), unjustified dismissal, and breach of the Wages Protection Act 1983 and good faith obligations against her employer ITM, following a dispute over an overpayment of wages and the cessation of flexible working arrangements upon her return from parental leave. The Authority found that Ms Howard's prolonged refusal to agree to a repayment schedule, her unsubstantiated bullying allegations, and her refusal to return to full-time work as contractually required collectively justified ITM's decision to dismiss her. All of Ms Howard's claims were dismissed.

Ms Howard was employed as a full-time Data and Insights Analyst by ITM from 3 August 2020 until November 2024. She returned from parental leave on transitional part-time arrangements (reduced to 29 hours per week until 31 October 2024), after which her employment agreement required her to revert to 40 hours per week. An administrative payroll error resulted in Ms Howard being overpaid by $6,265.38 (gross) over six pay periods between June and August 2024. From August 2024, ITM made extensive efforts to agree a repayment schedule with Ms Howard, but she repeatedly declined to sign any agreement and conditioned repayment on ITM extending her part-time hours to January 2025 — a position ITM denied ever agreeing to. Ms Howard lodged a personal grievance on 22 October 2024 alleging bullying and harassment by senior managers, refused to return to work on 1 November 2024, and was subsequently dismissed following a disciplinary process in November 2024. The overpayment amount was deducted from her final pay.

1. Unjustified Disadvantage (Bullying): Whether ITM unjustifiably disadvantaged Ms Howard through bullying and harassment by two senior managers during the overpayment and disciplinary processes — [Dismissed]
2. Unjustified Dismissal: Whether ITM unjustifiably dismissed Ms Howard under s 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 — [Dismissed]
3. Wages Protection Act Breach: Whether the deduction of the overpayment ($6,265.38 gross) from Ms Howard's final pay breached ss 4 and 5 of the Wages Protection Act 1983 — [Dismissed]
4. Good Faith (s 4 ERA): Whether ITM breached its good faith obligations under s 4 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 — [Dismissed]
5. Remedies: Whether Ms Howard was entitled to lost wages and/or compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act — [Not reached]
6. Contributory Conduct Reduction: Whether any remedy should be reduced under s 124 of the Act for Ms Howard's blameworthy contributory conduct — [Not reached]
7. Costs: Whether either party should contribute to the other's costs of representation — [Reserved]

1. Unjustified Disadvantage (Bullying): The Authority applied ITM's own harassment and bullying policy and assessed whether the conduct of Ms Jourdain and Ms Gerrand amounted to unwanted, unwarranted, and repeated behaviour causing detriment to Ms Howard's dignity, safety, or wellbeing. The Authority found that the conduct attributed to Ms Jourdain — including pursuing repayment, requiring Ms Howard to return to full-time hours, and involvement in disciplinary processes — constituted the reasonable exercise of lawful management functions, not bullying. No evidence supported the bullying allegations against Ms Gerrand, who was not named in the original personal grievance. Although the Authority noted an error in ITM communicating the investigation outcome through Ms Jourdain (the subject of the complaint), this did not amount to unjustified disadvantage. The grievance claim was dismissed.
2. Unjustified Dismissal: The Authority applied the s 103A test — whether ITM's actions were what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances. It assessed whether ITM sufficiently investigated, raised concerns with Ms Howard, gave her a reasonable opportunity to respond, and genuinely considered her response. The Authority found that Ms Howard's sustained refusal to agree to any repayment schedule while acknowledging the debt, her linking of repayment to an unsubstantiated claim of agreed part-time hours, her unsubstantiated bullying allegations, and her refusal to return to work as contractually required collectively established a pattern of conduct going to the core of the employment relationship. Relying on Orme v Eagle Technology Group Ltd and Emmanuel v Waikato District Health Board [2019] NZEmpC 81, the Authority was satisfied that the conduct amounted to serious misconduct capable of destroying the trust and confidence essential to the relationship. Procedurally, Ms Howard was given notice, attended meetings with a representative, and ITM genuinely considered her feedback before deciding to dismiss. The dismissal was justified.
3. Wages Protection Act Breach: The Authority considered whether the deduction from final pay complied with ss 4 and 5 of the Wages Protection Act 1983, which require either written consent or, where an employment agreement allows deductions, consultation about the specific deduction. The IEA contained a general deductions clause expressly covering overpayments. ITM had consulted extensively with Ms Howard over three months about repayment. While no express written consent to a final-pay deduction was obtained, Ms Howard's representative had acknowledged that any outstanding amount would be deducted from final pay, indicating awareness. The Authority was satisfied there was no breach of the WPA.
4. Good Faith (s 4 ERA): The Authority found no breach of ITM's good faith obligations. ITM responded promptly to the overpayment, offered multiple repayment options, corrected its error on gross versus net calculation, investigated the bullying allegations, and responded to the personal grievance. The Authority found ITM made genuine efforts to accommodate Ms Howard's hours during her return to work and to resolve the repayment issue collaboratively. By contrast, Ms Howard's conduct — conditioning repayment on part-time hours and refusing to make any payment once the gross/net issue was resolved — raised its own good faith concerns. The claim was unsuccessful.
5. Remedies: Not reached, as all substantive grievance and statutory breach claims were dismissed.
6. Contributory Conduct Reduction: Not reached, as no remedies were awarded.
7. Costs: Reserved. The parties were encouraged to resolve costs between themselves. If not resolved, ITM may lodge a costs memorandum within 28 days; Ms Howard has 14 days from service to reply. The Authority indicated costs would be assessed on its standard daily tariff basis absent special circumstances.

All of Ms Howard's claims — unjustified disadvantage, unjustified dismissal, Wages Protection Act breach, and good faith breach — were dismissed in their entirety.

None ordered. All claims were unsuccessful. Costs are reserved pending agreement between the parties or further memoranda.

Applicant: Michael Kissin (employee)
Respondent: WiTricity New Zealand Limited (employer)

Applicant: Self-represented
Respondent: Joe Benz

Mr Kissin was employed as director of engineering by WiTricity New Zealand Limited from May 2021 until June 2025, when he resigned with four weeks' notice as the company was being wound up. He brought claims for unpaid wages and annual holiday pay. The Authority upheld both claims in full, ordering WNZL to pay a total of $49,420 (gross).

Mr Kissin commenced employment with WNZL on or about 1 May 2021 as director of engineering. In early 2025, he became aware of a reduction in funding from the US parent company, WiTricity Corporation. On 28 April 2025, all employees were locked out of WNZL's computer systems; Mr Kissin was told this was an error and that long-term funding was being pursued. He resigned on 10 May 2025 with four weeks' written notice, and his final day was 6 June 2025. During his notice period he assisted WNZL by placing assets into storage, though he remained locked out of computer systems. At a meeting on 15 May 2025 it became clear the company was being wound up. Mr Kissin claimed he was owed one week's unpaid salary prior to resignation, his four-week notice period wages, and outstanding annual holiday pay. WNZL did not file a statement in reply, provide an affidavit, or supply wages, time, or leave records as directed by the Authority.

1. Wage Arrears: Whether WNZL owed Mr Kissin unpaid wages, comprising one week's salary ($4,442 gross) and four weeks' notice period pay ($17,769 gross) — [Established]
2. Annual Holiday Pay: Whether WNZL owed Mr Kissin outstanding annual holiday pay at the conclusion of his employment — [Established]
3. Costs: Whether costs should be awarded to either party — [Dismissed]

1. Wage Arrears: Under s 131 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, the Authority has jurisdiction to order payment of wages owed. Mr Kissin supported his claim with payslips and additional documentation. WNZL failed to respond, file a reply, or provide any wage and time records as directed. The Authority accepted Mr Kissin's evidence and was satisfied that WNZL owed him $22,211 (gross) in wage arrears, comprising one week's unpaid salary and four weeks' notice period pay.
2. Annual Holiday Pay: Employees are entitled to annual holiday pay accrued during their employment under the Holidays Act 2003. Mr Kissin provided evidence of the outstanding balance of annual holiday pay at the end of his employment. Again, WNZL offered no records or rebuttal evidence. The Authority was satisfied WNZL owed Mr Kissin $27,209 (gross) as the outstanding balance of annual holiday pay at the conclusion of his employment.
3. Costs: The Authority exercised its discretion and directed that costs lie where they fall, with no reasons elaborated upon beyond that brief statement.

Both claims were upheld in full; the wage arrears and annual holiday pay claims were established, and no costs were awarded to either party.

- Wage arrears: $22,211 (gross), payable within 28 days
- Annual holiday pay: $27,209 (gross), payable within 28 days
- Total ordered: $49,420 (gross)
- Contributory reduction: None applied
- Penalties: None ordered
- Costs: None ordered (costs to lie where they fall)
- Reinstatement: No

[COSTS ONLY]

Applicant: Devon Harris (employee)
Respondent: Astra Construction Group Limited (employer)

Applicant: Claudia Serra, advocate
Respondent: Doreen Wu

This is a costs-only determination following a successful personal grievance claim by Devon Harris for unjustified dismissal against Astra Construction Group Limited. The parties agreed costs by consent and jointly sought a consent determination. The Authority ordered Astra Construction Group Limited to pay Mr Harris $4,500.00 as a contribution to his costs of representation.

On 29 April 2026, the Authority determined in [2026] NZERA 276 that Mr Harris had established a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal, with awards and a penalty made in his favour. Costs were reserved at that time and the parties were encouraged to resolve costs directly. By joint memorandum dated 12 May 2026, the parties informed the Authority they had agreed on costs and sought a consent determination.

1. Costs Award: Whether Mr Harris, as the successful party, is entitled to a costs contribution by consent — [Established]

1. Costs Award: The parties reached agreement on costs and jointly sought a consent determination. As the successful party, Mr Harris was entitled to a costs award. The Authority gave effect to the parties' agreement and ordered payment of $4,500.00.

The costs claim was resolved by consent, with the Authority ordering Astra Construction Group Limited to pay Mr Harris $4,500.00 as a contribution to his costs of representation.

Costs: $4,500.00 (contribution to costs of representation), payable by Astra Construction Group Limited to Mr Harris by no later than 19 June 2026.

Applicant: Weidong Zhou (worker/applicant)
Respondent: Lihe Construction Limited (alleged employer)

Applicant: Lennon Xi, advocate
Respondent: Tracey Hu, counsel

Weidong Zhou claimed he was an employee of Lihe Construction Limited (LCL) and was seriously injured while working at a construction site on 11 February 2025 moving heavy marble slabs. LCL denied an employment relationship existed, asserting Mr Zhou was an independent contractor engaged for a single specific job. The Authority found that Mr Zhou was not an employee of LCL and was therefore unable to assist him further with his claims of unjustified dismissal and disadvantage.

LCL is a sole-director company operated by Mr Luo, which performs renovation and gardening work using casual contract labour as needed. In early February 2025, a third-party contractor (XXD) engaged Mr Luo for a marble slab unloading job; Mr Luo in turn arranged additional workers via a WeChat chain initiated through an intermediary (SSP), advertising $24 per hour at a specific address. Mr Zhou, who had been unemployed, learned of the job from his friend Mr Chen and agreed to attend without any direct prior contact with Mr Luo. On 11 February 2025, Mr Zhou arrived slightly late to the site and was seriously injured when a marble slab slipped, requiring three months of hospitalisation and approximately a year of recovery. Mr Zhou claimed he was directed by Mr Luo on site, while Mr Luo maintained that XXD controlled the site and issued instructions in English, which he merely translated. The central dispute was whether the real nature of the relationship between Mr Zhou and LCL constituted employment.

1. Employment Status: Whether Mr Zhou was an employee or an independent contractor of LCL when working on 11 February 2025, applying s 6(1)–(3) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 — [Dismissed (not an employee)]
2. Unjustified Dismissal: Whether Mr Zhou was unjustifiably dismissed by LCL — [Not reached]
3. Unjustified Disadvantage: Whether Mr Zhou was unjustifiably disadvantaged by LCL — [Not reached]
4. Costs: Whether costs should be awarded — [Reserved]

1. Employment Status: The Authority applied s 6(1)–(3) of the Employment Relations Act 2000, noting first that no written agreement designating Mr Zhou as an independent contractor existed, so the "specified contractor" gateway in s 6(7) was unavailable. The Authority then applied the control, integration, and fundamental/economic reality tests, as endorsed by the Supreme Court in Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd (No 2) and affirmed in Rasier Operations BV v E Tū Inc [2025] NZSC 162. On control, the Authority found LCL did not control the site (XXD did), Mr Luo had no contact details for Mr Zhou, could not enforce his attendance, and Mr Zhou was free to accept other work. On integration, LCL had no payroll, no employees, and no organisational structure into which Mr Zhou could be integrated. On the fundamental test, Mr Zhou was paid a fixed hourly rate, was free to subcontract, provided no tools (though neither did LCL, rendering this factor neutral), and bore no risk of loss/opportunity for profit distinct from other workers. The Authority concluded Mr Zhou was not in an employment relationship with LCL.
2. Unjustified Dismissal: Not reached, as the threshold issue of employment status was resolved against Mr Zhou, making it unnecessary to consider any personal grievance claims.
3. Unjustified Disadvantage: Not reached for the same reason — the absence of an employment relationship meant the Authority had no jurisdiction to consider this claim.
4. Costs: Reserved. The parties were encouraged to resolve costs between themselves. LCL was directed to lodge a memorandum on costs within 14 days of the determination if resolution was not reached, with Mr Zhou having 14 days to reply. The Authority indicated costs would ordinarily be determined on the notional daily rate unless particular circumstances warranted adjustment.

The claim was dismissed; Mr Zhou was found not to be an employee of LCL, and no further relief could be granted.

None ordered. Costs reserved pending memoranda from the parties.

[CONSENT]

Applicant: Health New Zealand (employer)
Respondent: Association of Professionals and Executive Employees Inc / APEX (union)

Applicant: Susan Hornsby-Geluk, counsel
Respondent: Sarah Barker, advocate

Health New Zealand applied to the Employment Relations Authority for urgent referral to facilitation under s 50B of the Employment Relations Act 2000, after collective bargaining with APEX for a new Medical Physicists' collective agreement stalled following ten days of bargaining and multiple rounds of strike notices. APEX did not oppose the application. The Authority found the ground of unduly protracted bargaining under s 50C(1)(b) was established, and ordered the parties into facilitation.

Health New Zealand and APEX are parties to an expired Medical Physicists' collective agreement, with APEX having initiated bargaining for a new agreement on 3 July 2025. Bargaining commenced on 30 July 2025 and spanned ten days across multiple sessions, plus a productivity workshop and mediated bargaining on 14 May 2026. APEX issued strike notices in May 2026 targeting multiple hospitals nationwide, though early notices were withdrawn following mediation; further notices were issued on 22 and 25 May 2026. Despite these efforts, the parties were unable to reach a new collective agreement. APEX accepted the factual chronology but disputed minor details, including whether Health New Zealand tabled an offer in August 2025 and whether APEX agreed to speak positively of a mediation offer. Notwithstanding these minor disputes, APEX did not oppose the application and agreed the matter could be resolved on the papers.

1. Unduly Protracted Bargaining (s 50C(1)(b)): Whether the bargaining has been unduly protracted and extensive efforts including mediation have failed to resolve the difficulties preventing settlement — [Established]
2. Public Interest Strike Ground (s 50C(1)(d)): Whether APEX's proposed strikes would, if they occurred, be likely to affect the public interest substantially — [Not reached]

1. Unduly Protracted Bargaining (s 50C(1)(b)): The Authority applied the test from McCain Foods (NZ) Limited v Service & Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc [2009], which defines undue protraction as "excessive or disproportionate protraction as opposed to reasonable or expected or common protraction." The Authority noted that bargaining had continued across ten days since July 2025 with a productivity workshop and mediation, yet the parties remained unable to settle. Applying the principle from Service & Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc v Sanford Limited [2012] that the Authority should not be astute to find reasons to refuse referral where a common sense assessment supports it, the Authority was satisfied this ground was made out.
2. Public Interest Strike Ground (s 50C(1)(d)): As the s 50C(1)(b) ground was established, it was unnecessary for the Authority to consider whether the proposed strikes would substantially affect the public interest under s 50C(1)(d).

The application for referral to facilitation was upheld on the basis that bargaining had been unduly protracted under s 50C(1)(b), and the parties are ordered into facilitation.

Facilitation ordered: The parties are directed to engage in facilitation to assist in reaching a new collective agreement. A case management conference will be convened promptly to arrange urgent facilitation, to be conducted by a different Authority Member. Costs: Each party bears their own costs, per the Authority's standard practice direction on facilitation referrals.

Applicant: Claudia Moreira and Laura Jimenez (workers claiming employee status)
Respondent: Renew Wellness Place Limited (engaging entity)

Applicant: Paul Pa'u, advocate for the First and Second Applicants
Respondent: Alastair Espie and Bridget Craig for the Respondent

Two workers — Claudia Moreira and Laura Jimenez — engaged by Renew Wellness Place Limited under written independent contractor agreements claimed they were in fact employees and sought a preliminary determination on that threshold question. The Authority applied the three Bryson v Three Foot Six tests (control, integration, and fundamental/economic reality) alongside analysis of the written agreements and how the relationships operated in practice. The Authority found both applicants were genuine independent contractors, dismissed their applications, and reserved costs.

Renew Wellness Place Limited operates a health and wellness clinic in Parnell, Auckland. Ms Jimenez began assisting with setting up the clinic in late 2023/early 2024, initially taking on a clinic manager role, while Ms Moreira commenced on 12 February 2024 as a customer service manager. Both signed written "Contractor Agreements" labelling them as independent contractors, with Ms Moreira negotiating some adjustments to her terms (public holiday pay at time and a half, and at least one day off per week). The working relationship operated largely as described in each contract, with the applicants managing their own rostering, rendering invoices fortnightly, and handling their own tax obligations. Tensions arose in mid-to-late 2024 when Renew sought to reduce contractor hours due to financial pressures, and both applicants terminated their agreements in December 2024. Each applicant claimed other personal grievances contingent on being found to be employees; both denied being independent contractors in reality.

1. Employment Status: Were Ms Moreira and Ms Jimenez employees of Renew Wellness Place Limited, applying the "real nature of the relationship" test under s 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000, including the control test, integration test, and fundamental/economic reality test as articulated in Bryson v Three Foot Six Limited? — (Dismissed)
2. Dependent Personal Grievances: Could the applicants pursue their other personal grievances (contingent on a finding of employment)? — (Not reached)
3. Costs: Should either party contribute to the costs of representation of the other party? — (Conditional/Reserved)

1. Employment Status: The Authority applied s 6 of the Act, which requires it to determine the "real nature of the relationship" without treating any label as determinative, and used the three Bryson v Three Foot Six tests. On the control test, the Authority found Mr Rissetto exercised minimal day-to-day control, especially after May 2024, with the applicants managing their own rostering and reporting only at a high level — consistent with independent contracting. On the integration test, while the applicants wore uniforms and appeared to clients as part of the business, the Authority treated this as a neutral factor reflecting the character of the services rather than the true nature of the relationship. On the fundamental/economic reality test, both applicants set their own hours, rendered invoices, managed their own tax, and brought pre-existing skills — indicating they worked on their own account. The Authority also noted neither was unsophisticated, the contracts were negotiated (not imposed on a take-it-or-leave-it basis), neither sought employee entitlements such as leave or KiwiSaver in negotiations, each managed their own tax affairs, and both applicants had themselves explained the contractor arrangement to other Renew workers. The written agreements were given weight as genuine expressions of the parties' mutual intent, with limited divergence in practice. The application was dismissed.
2. Dependent Personal Grievances: Not reached, as the finding that both applicants were independent contractors meant the Authority had no jurisdiction to consider grievances available only to employees.
3. Costs: Costs were reserved. The parties were encouraged to resolve costs between themselves. If not resolved, Renew may lodge a memorandum on costs within 28 days of the determination, with the applicants having 14 days to reply. The Authority indicated it would ordinarily apply its notional daily rate of $2,250 for on-the-papers matters unless circumstances warranted adjustment.

The claims were dismissed in full — both applicants were found to be genuine independent contractors, not employees of Renew Wellness Place Limited.

None ordered. The applications for a finding of employment status were dismissed. Costs were reserved, with a process prescribed for future determination if not resolved between the parties.

Applicant: John Huntley-Byrne (employee)
Respondent: Dallison 2021 Limited (employer)

Applicant: Dave Cain, advocate
Respondent: Kylie James (self-represented as director)

John Huntley-Byrne was employed as a café worker at Hind Quarters café (operated by Dallison 2021 Limited) from June to November 2024, when he was summarily dismissed for alleged serious misconduct following an incomplete café close-down. The Authority found the dismissal unjustified on procedural grounds — specifically, Dallison failed to convene a formal disciplinary meeting, did not allow Huntley-Byrne a proper opportunity to respond with support, and conducted the process via a group messenger chat. He was awarded lost wages and compensation for humiliation, both reduced by 10% for his contributory conduct, plus a nominal penalty against Dallison for failing to provide complete wage and time records.

John Huntley-Byrne commenced employment with Dallison 2021 Limited at its Waverley café on 5 June 2024, working general kitchen duties including cooking and dishwashing. Performance concerns arose within weeks, including absenteeism, presentation issues, and alleged work practice failures, though Huntley-Byrne disputed many of these. A meeting was held in October 2024 regarding conduct issues, after which a written final warning letter (dated 29 October 2024) was placed in a sealed envelope and handed to Huntley-Byrne — he never opened it and director Kylie James never directed him to do so. On 17 November 2024, Huntley-Byrne closed the café but left several tasks incomplete; Ms James photographed these and posted them in a group staff messenger chat. On 18 November 2024, Ms James dismissed Huntley-Byrne via a text message exchange, stating "you blew it yesterday," without convening any formal disciplinary meeting or providing an opportunity to respond with support. Huntley-Byrne claimed he never received a formal dismissal letter that was allegedly posted to him, and he did not see the warning letter until it appeared in Dallison's Statement in Reply in June 2025.

1. Unjustified Dismissal: Whether Dallison's decision to summarily dismiss Huntley-Byrne met the statutory test under s 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 — specifically whether a fair and reasonable employer could have acted as Dallison did, having regard to the four procedural requirements in s 103A(3) — [Established]
2. Lost Wages: Whether Huntley-Byrne is entitled to compensation for lost wages under s 123(1)(b) of the Act, and whether he took adequate steps to minimise his loss — [Established]
3. Humiliation Compensation: Whether Huntley-Byrne is entitled to compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act, and the appropriate quantum — [Established]
4. Contributory Conduct: Whether Huntley-Byrne's own conduct contributed to the situation giving rise to the grievance under s 124 of the Act, and if so, the appropriate percentage reduction in remedies — [Established]
5. Wage and Time Records Breach: Whether Dallison breached s 130(2) of the Act by failing to provide complete wage and time records when requested — [Established]
6. Penalties: Whether a penalty should be imposed for the s 130(2) breach, the appropriate quantum, and whether it should be payable to Huntley-Byrne or the Crown — [Established]
7. Costs: Whether either party should contribute to the other's costs of representation — [Conditional/reserved]

1. Unjustified Dismissal: The Authority applied the s 103A(2) objective test — whether a fair and reasonable employer could have acted as Dallison did. The Authority found that while some informal investigation occurred (café visit, photos, group chat exchange), Dallison failed to meet the procedural requirements of s 103A(3): no formal disciplinary meeting was convened, Huntley-Byrne was not given a proper opportunity to respond with support, and conducting the process via a group messenger chat was found to be inappropriate given that dismissal was a possible outcome. The Authority noted Dallison had demonstrated it could follow a proper process, having done so for the October 2024 meeting. The dismissal was found unjustified.
2. Lost Wages: The applicable principle requires an employee to take reasonable steps to mitigate loss (citing Argosy Imports Ltd v Lineham [1998]). Dallison asserted Huntley-Byrne failed to seek work promptly but provided no supporting evidence; Huntley-Byrne provided documentation of job applications via Trade Me, Seek, and Zeil, and engagement with WINZ. The Authority was satisfied with his mitigation efforts and awarded the full claimed gross amount of $8,299.20 (13 weeks at $24/hour, averaging 26.6 hours/week), subject to the contributory reduction.
3. Humiliation Compensation: Under s 123(1)(c)(i), compensation is intended to quantify harm, not punish the employer (citing Paykel Ltd v Ahlfield [1993], Stormont v Peddle Thorp Aitken Ltd [2017], Waikato DHB v Archibald [2017], Richora Group Ltd v Cheng [2018]). Huntley-Byrne described financial hardship (selling his car, struggling to pay bills), a 13-week WINZ stand-down, poor sleep, anxiety, depression, isolation, and relationship strain. The Authority found he was adversely impacted and awarded $15,000, subject to the contributory reduction.
4. Contributory Conduct: Under s 124, the Authority must consider whether the employee's own actions contributed to the situation giving rise to the grievance. The Authority accepted that Huntley-Byrne knew the café close-down standards from prior experience, and that the incomplete tasks on 17 November 2024 partially contributed to the situation. A 10% reduction was applied to all financial remedies.
5. Wage and Time Records Breach: Section 130(2) requires employers to maintain and provide wage and time records. The Authority accepted that Dallison's failure to provide complete records when first requested constituted a breach of s 130(2). The breach was noted to have caused no direct financial harm (no unpaid wages claim was made), but a breach was nonetheless established.
6. Penalties: The Authority applied s 133A principles and the framework from Borsboom v Preet PVT Limited [2016]: penalties are punitive and deterrent in purpose, not compensatory. Noting that Huntley-Byrne had already been awarded substantial remedies and that the breach caused no direct financial loss, the Authority imposed a nominal penalty of $500, payable to the Crown (not to Huntley-Byrne), to promote compliance.
7. Costs: Costs were reserved. The parties were encouraged to resolve costs between themselves. If unresolved, Huntley-Byrne may file a costs memorandum within 28 days, with Dallison having 14 days to reply. The Authority indicated it would apply its usual daily tariff basis, adjusted if circumstances warrant.

The claim was partially upheld — unjustified dismissal established, lost wages and humiliation compensation awarded (both reduced by 10% for contributory conduct), a nominal penalty imposed for the wage records breach, and costs reserved.

- Lost wages: $7,469.28 gross (being $8,299.20 reduced by 10% for contributory conduct)
- Compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings: $13,500.00 (being $15,000 reduced by 10% for contributory conduct)
- Contributory reduction: 10% applied to all financial remedies — Huntley-Byrne left multiple café close-down tasks incomplete on 17 November 2024, contributing to the circumstances that triggered the dismissal
- Penalty: $500.00 payable to the Crown for breach of s 130(2) (failure to provide complete wage and time records)
- Costs: Reserved; parties encouraged to settle; memorandum process specified if unresolved
- Reinstatement: Not sought or ordered
- All payments due within 28 days of the determination date

---

Applicant: Jennifer Jacobsen (employee)
Respondent: Cube Innovations Limited (employer)

Applicant: Caroline Silk, counsel
Respondent: Dave Etchells, self-represented (sole director of respondent)

Jennifer Jacobsen, a part-time Marketing Consultant, was summarily dismissed by Cube Innovations Limited after only two weeks of work, purportedly under a 90-day trial period. The Authority found the trial period invalid because Cube failed to give the required contractual notice on dismissal and because the employment agreement was signed after Ms Jacobsen had already commenced work. Cube's unjustified dismissal and failure to provide written reasons for dismissal were both established, resulting in awards of $2,436 in lost wages and $15,000 in hurt and humiliation compensation, plus KiwiSaver employer contributions.

Ms Jacobsen was engaged by Cube as a part-time Marketing Consultant (one day per week) commencing 17 February 2025, at $29 per hour, travelling from New Plymouth to Hamilton. The employment agreement (IEA), which included a 90-day trial period clause, was sent to Ms Jacobsen on 12 February 2025; she sought and received advice from her father (an experienced HR professional) before the agreement was signed on her first day of work, 17 February 2025. The key factual dispute was whether the IEA was signed before or after Ms Jacobsen began working: she said it was signed around an hour after she started work, while Mr Etchells (Cube's sole director, who appeared without his intended witness) said it was signed first. On 4 March 2025, after only two working days, Cube emailed Ms Jacobsen dismissing her with no reasons and no notice, purporting to rely on the trial period. Ms Jacobsen sought reinstatement of lost wages, hurt and humiliation compensation, KiwiSaver contributions, and a good faith penalty, all of which were disputed by Cube, which maintained the trial period was valid.

1. Trial Period Validity – Pre-commencement signing: Was the IEA's trial period provision invalidated because Ms Jacobsen signed the employment agreement after commencing work? — [Established]
2. Trial Period Validity – Failure to give notice: Was the trial period invalidated because Cube failed to provide the three days' contractual notice (or pay in lieu) upon dismissal? — [Established]
3. Trial Period Validity – Travel as "work": Was Ms Jacobsen's travel from New Plymouth to Hamilton the day before commencement "work" such as to further invalidate the trial period? — [Dismissed]
4. Unjustified Dismissal: Was Ms Jacobsen unjustifiably dismissed by Cube within the meaning of section 103A of the Act? — [Established]
5. Unjustified Disadvantage – Failure to train: Did Cube unjustifiably disadvantage Ms Jacobsen by failing to provide adequate training and support? — [Dismissed]
6. Unjustified Disadvantage – Failure to provide written reasons: Did Cube unjustifiably disadvantage Ms Jacobsen by refusing to provide written reasons for dismissal under section 120 of the Act? — [Established]
7. Lost Wages: Should Ms Jacobsen receive reimbursement of lost wages (including lost KiwiSaver employer contributions) as a remedy? — [Established]
8. Hurt and Humiliation Compensation: Should Ms Jacobsen receive compensation for hurt, humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings under section 123(1)(c)(i) of the Act? — [Established]
9. Contributory Conduct: Did Ms Jacobsen contribute to the situation giving rise to her grievance, warranting a reduction in remedies under section 124 of the Act? — [Dismissed]
10. Good Faith Penalty: Did Cube breach its duty of good faith under section 4A of the Act, and should a penalty be imposed? — [Dismissed]
11. Costs: Should either party contribute to the other's costs of representation? — [Reserved/deferred]

1. Trial Period Validity – Pre-commencement signing: The Authority found it more likely than not that the IEA was signed at least one hour after Ms Jacobsen had already commenced work, following an induction, site tour and a period working on a spreadsheet. This breach of the requirement that the agreement be signed before the employee commences work (per Smith v Stokes Valley Pharmacy (2009) Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 111) invalidated the trial period. The Authority noted that Mr Etchells's evidence that signing occurred first only emerged in his formal witness statement and appeared to be self-serving. However, this finding was secondary given the more decisive notice finding.
2. Trial Period Validity – Failure to give notice: The applicable trial period clause required three days' notice (or garden leave/pay in lieu). Mr Etchells admitted Cube gave no notice and made no payment in lieu. The Authority applied Ioan v Scott Technology NZ Ltd [2019] NZCA 386 and Roach v Nazareth Care Charitable Trust [2018] NZEmpC 123, confirming that deficient notice is not lawful notice, and that failure to provide contractual notice invalidates reliance on a trial period provision. This was independently sufficient to invalidate the trial period.
3. Trial Period Validity – Travel as "work": The Authority rejected the submission that Ms Jacobsen's travel from New Plymouth the day before was "work." She was not performing any tasks for Cube during the journey, was not under direction or control beyond the requirement to present for work the next day, and the payments she received (travel, accommodation, meals) were properly characterised as reimbursing allowances for an unusually long commute rather than remuneration for work performed.
4. Unjustified Dismissal: With the trial period invalid, Cube's dismissal of Ms Jacobsen was subject to the section 103A justification test. The Authority found the dismissal was unexpected and perfunctory: delivered by email with no explanation, no prior raising of concerns, no opportunity for Ms Jacobsen to respond, and no genuine consideration of her position. These were significant, not minor, procedural and substantive deficiencies. Cube could not satisfy the test of justification and the unjustified dismissal was established.
5. Unjustified Disadvantage – Failure to train: Applying Jansen v BDS Chartered Accountants Ltd [2026] NZERA 230, the Authority considered Cube's size, Ms Jacobsen's short tenure, and the training actually provided. While the approach was ad hoc rather than structured, Ms Jacobsen received an induction and some on-the-job training from Ms Mansill. The Authority found the training provided was reasonable in the circumstances and this disadvantage claim was not established.
6. Unjustified Disadvantage – Failure to provide written reasons: Under section 120 of the Act, an employee may request written reasons for dismissal within 60 days, and the employer must respond within 14 days (subject to an exception for valid trial periods). Because the trial period was invalid, no exception applied. Cube, by admission, failed to provide reasons when requested and Mr Etchells refused again at the investigation meeting. The Authority found this deprived Ms Jacobsen of a statutory right and, although it occurred post-employment, the obligation survives the employment relationship and is justiciable as a disadvantage.
7. Lost Wages: The Authority applied the principles from Sam's Fukuyama Food Services Ltd v Zhang [2011] NZCA 608, noting that awards are discretionary, moderation is appropriate, and a broad-brush approach is inevitable. Ms Jacobsen's continued café employment was relevant to mitigation, but the Authority accepted that increasing her hours there was not immediately possible and that emotional harm would have affected her ability to find replacement work. Three months' lost wages at six hours per week at $29 per hour was awarded at $2,436 gross. KiwiSaver employer contributions on that amount were also awarded under section 123(1)(c)(ii).
8. Hurt and Humiliation Compensation: The Authority assessed the impact on Ms Jacobsen individually — she remained visibly upset at the hearing, suffered embarrassment, lost confidence, and her self-worth was still recovering. The Authority compared the facts to Reddy v Studio Image Ltd [2026] NZERA 323 ($13,500 awarded for similarly perfunctory dismissal) and Roach ($25,000, which had additional aggravating features). The total award of $15,000 was split as $13,000 for the unjustified dismissal and $2,000 for the unjustified disadvantage.
9. Contributory Conduct: The Authority found no contributory conduct by Ms Jacobsen. She had attended work as required, done what was asked, and no concerns about her performance or conduct had ever been raised by Cube. No reduction to remedies was applied.
10. Good Faith Penalty: The Authority applied the high threshold for a section 4A penalty — requiring deliberate, serious, and sustained conduct intended to undermine the employment relationship. While Cube's conduct was unjustified, Mr Etchells genuinely (if wrongly) believed he could rely on the trial period. The Authority found no evidence of intent to deliberately undermine the employment relationship, distinguishing the case from others where penalties have been imposed (e.g. McCann v Winton Capital Ltd [2025] NZERA 171). No penalty was imposed.
11. Costs: The Authority reserved costs and directed the parties to attempt to resolve costs between themselves. If not resolved, Ms Jacobsen may file a costs memorandum within 14 days of the written determination, with Cube having 14 days to reply. The Authority indicated it would apply its usual notional daily rate absent special factors.

The claim was partially upheld: unjustified dismissal and unjustified disadvantage (failure to provide written reasons) were both established, but the unjustified disadvantage claim regarding training and the good faith penalty claim were dismissed.

- Lost wages: $2,436 gross (three months' lost wages at 6 hours per week at $29/hour), less applicable tax, deductions, or withholdings.
- KiwiSaver employer contribution: Calculated in accordance with the KiwiSaver Act 2006 on the $2,436 lost remuneration figure.
- Hurt and humiliation compensation: $15,000 (comprising $13,000 for unjustified dismissal and $2,000 for unjustified disadvantage), paid without deduction.
- Contributory reduction: None applied.
- Penalty: None ordered.
- Costs: Reserved; parties encouraged to agree costs; timetable set if Authority determination required.
- Reinstatement: Not sought or ordered.
- All amounts payable within 28 days of the determination.

---

Applicant: Wayne Blackbourn and Rebecca Malone (employees)
Respondent: Trustees of Coirebhrecain Trust (First Respondent/employer); Tony Kuriger (Second Respondent/Trustee)

Applicant: Kelly Coley, advocate for the Applicants
Respondent: No appearance

Two employees — partners Wayne Blackbourn and Rebecca Malone — who worked on a farm in Woodville claimed arrears of wages, unpaid KiwiSaver employer contributions, and public holiday pay breaches against the Coirebhrecain Trust, which failed to engage with the Authority's process. The Authority accepted the applicants' uncontested evidence in full and ordered the known Trustee, Tony Kuriger, to pay a total of approximately $9,386 across both applicants. Penalties were declined at this stage due to uncertainty about the full identity of the Trustees.

Mr Blackbourn was employed full-time by the Coirebhrecain Trust on a farm in Woodville for approximately six years, and Ms Malone was employed seasonally over four years; both relationships ended on 31 May 2024. KiwiSaver employer contributions were paid for both employees until late-October 2022 when they abruptly ceased. Upon termination, Mr Blackbourn was told he was owed approximately $7,000 but received only $2,186.44, while Ms Malone was short paid approximately $300. The applicants made repeated unsuccessful attempts to recover unpaid wages from Mr Kuriger, and a formal request for wage and time records on 16 September 2024 also went unanswered. Despite being served with all relevant Authority documents, neither the Trust nor Mr Kuriger appeared at the investigation meeting or made any submissions.

1. Wage Arrears (Blackbourn): Whether Mr Blackbourn was owed unpaid wages and holiday pay — [Established]
2. Wage Arrears (Malone): Whether Ms Malone was owed unpaid wages from her final pay — [Established]
3. KiwiSaver Contributions (Blackbourn): Whether the Trust breached s 101B of the KiwiSaver Act 2006 by failing to pay employer KiwiSaver contributions for Mr Blackbourn — [Established]
4. KiwiSaver Contributions (Malone): Whether the Trust breached s 101B of the KiwiSaver Act 2006 by failing to pay employer KiwiSaver contributions for Ms Malone — [Established]
5. Public Holiday Pay (Blackbourn): Whether Mr Blackbourn was not correctly paid for public holidays under ss 50 and 56 of the Holidays Act 2003 — [Established]
6. Failure to Provide Records: Whether the Trust breached s 130 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and s 82 of the Holidays Act 2003 by failing to provide wage, time, and holiday/leave records — [Established (underlying breach found, but penalty not imposed)]
7. Penalties: Whether penalties should be imposed for breaches of s 75(2)(c) of the Holidays Act 2003, s 101B of the KiwiSaver Act 2006, and s 134(2) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 — [Not reached/Declined]
8. Trustee Liability: Whether Mr Kuriger as Trustee is jointly and severally liable for the Trust's obligations — [Established]

1. Wage Arrears (Blackbourn): The Authority accepted Mr Blackbourn's uncontested evidence that he was short paid on termination despite being owed approximately $7,000. Mr Blackbourn is owed $4,813.56 in unpaid wages and holiday pay.
2. Wage Arrears (Malone): Ms Malone's uncontested evidence established a shortfall of $300 in her final pay, which the Authority accepted as due and owing.
3. KiwiSaver Contributions (Blackbourn): The Trust ceased paying employer KiwiSaver contributions from late-October 2022 in breach of s 101B of the KiwiSaver Act 2006. The Authority found $3,199.22 owed to Mr Blackbourn.
4. KiwiSaver Contributions (Malone): Similarly, Ms Malone's employer KiwiSaver contributions ceased from late-October 2022. The Authority found $1,073.79 owed to Ms Malone.
5. Public Holiday Pay (Blackbourn): Mr Blackbourn gave evidence he was not correctly paid for public holidays as required by ss 50 and 56 of the Holidays Act 2003. This finding is incorporated within the $4,813.56 awarded for unpaid wages and holiday pay.
6. Failure to Provide Records: The Trust failed to provide wage, time, and holiday/leave records when requested, breaching s 130 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and s 82 of the Holidays Act 2003. While the breach was established, the Authority declined to impose a penalty at this stage (see issue 7).
7. Penalties: The Authority declined to impose penalties because the Trustees of the Trust are jointly and severally liable for any penalty order, and the Authority was uncertain as to the full identity of all Trustees beyond Mr Kuriger. No penalty was made at this point due to that uncertainty.
8. Trustee Liability: The Authority found that Mr Kuriger is a Trustee of the Coirebhrecain Trust and is jointly and severally liable for the Trust's obligations. All payment orders were directed to Mr Kuriger as the known Trustee.

The claims for wage arrears and unpaid KiwiSaver contributions were upheld in full; the claim for penalties was declined at this stage due to uncertainty about the full identity of the Trustees.

- Unpaid wages and holiday pay (Blackbourn): $4,813.56 (less PAYE)
- KiwiSaver employer contributions (Blackbourn): $3,199.22
- Unpaid wages – final pay shortfall (Malone): $300 (less PAYE)
- KiwiSaver employer contributions (Malone): $1,073.79
- Total ordered: approximately $9,386.57
- Penalties: None ordered (declined pending clarification of all Trustees)
- Reinstatement: No
- Costs: Reserved; parties encouraged to resolve between themselves; memorandum process outlined if needed

---

Applicant: EQX (employee)
Respondent: KiwiRail Limited (employer)

Applicant: Ben Thompson, counsel for the Applicant
Respondent: Anthony Russell and Ella Coggan, counsel for the Respondent

EQX, a container terminal operator (CTO) with KiwiRail since 2002, was dismissed in January 2026 on medical grounds after being classified as Permanently Unfit for Duty under the National Standards for Health Assessment of Rail Safety Workers. He sought interim reinstatement pending a substantive investigation of his unjustified dismissal grievance. The Authority granted interim reinstatement, finding EQX had a seriously arguable case for both unjustified dismissal and permanent reinstatement, and that the balance of convenience and overall justice favoured reinstatement.

EQX had worked as a CTO for KiwiRail since 2002, a safety-critical role requiring ongoing medical assessments under national rail safety standards. He had managed type 2 diabetes since 2014 and was diagnosed with severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) in 2023. In October 2025 his fitness classification changed to Temporarily Unfit for Duty; by early November 2025 the registered medical officer (RMO) and chief medical officer (CMO) classified him as Permanently Unfit for Duty. KiwiRail held two meetings with EQX and his union representative in November 2025 and January 2026, then proceeded with medical retirement on 13 January 2026, paying out a medical retirement entitlement. EQX raised a personal grievance on 17 February 2026 and, after receiving internal KiwiRail communications in March 2026 showing the CMO had acknowledged the need for specialist reviews not actually completed before dismissal, applied to the Authority on 2 April 2026 for interim reinstatement. KiwiRail opposed interim reinstatement, arguing EQX remained unfit, reinstatement would create health and safety risks, and damages would be an adequate remedy.

1. Non-Publication Order: Whether EQX's name and identifying details should be suppressed given the private medical information involved — [Established]
2. Urgency of Interim Application: Whether the interim reinstatement application should be accorded urgency — [Established]
3. Seriously Arguable Case – Unjustified Dismissal: Whether EQX has a seriously arguable (not frivolous or vexatious) case that his dismissal was unjustified, including whether KiwiRail followed the correct process under the collective agreement and Standards and whether good faith obligations under ss 4(1A)(c) and 103A(3) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 were met — [Established]
4. Seriously Arguable Case – Permanent Reinstatement: Whether EQX has a seriously arguable case that permanent reinstatement is practicable and reasonable under s 125 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 — [Established]
5. Balance of Convenience: Whether the balance of convenience favours granting interim reinstatement, considering health and safety obligations, adequacy of damages, delay, and the medical retirement payment — [Established (favouring EQX)]
6. Overall Justice: Whether overall justice requires interim reinstatement — [Established (favouring EQX)]
7. Interim Reinstatement Order Conditions: Whether conditions should attach to the interim reinstatement order — [Dismissed (no conditions required)]
8. Costs: Whether costs should be determined — [Reserved]

1. Non-Publication Order: The Authority applied s 174A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (by implication), noting that significant private medical information would be canvassed in the determination and associating it with EQX by name would likely cause adverse consequences, with little public interest in publication of his name. KiwiRail did not oppose. A temporary non-publication order was made pending further order.
2. Urgency of Interim Application: The Authority applied its standard approach of according urgency to interim reinstatement applications. KiwiRail's objection (that EQX was unfit and had received a medical retirement payment, and no memorandum seeking urgency had been lodged) was rejected as providing no sufficient reason to depart from the standard approach.
3. Seriously Arguable Case – Unjustified Dismissal: The Authority applied the objective fair and reasonable employer standard under s 103A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and considered the good faith requirements under s 4(1A)(c). Key to the finding was that internal CMO and RMO communications, only disclosed to EQX in March 2026, showed that specialist reviews of EQX's diabetes and OSA — which the CMO had identified as required before a Permanently Unfit classification could be confirmed — had never been carried out. There was also arguable evidence of predetermination, with KiwiRail's rehabilitation manager confirming medical retirement would proceed due to delays in obtaining specialist sign-off rather than actual completion of required assessments. The Authority found it seriously arguable that KiwiRail could not establish incapacity in accordance with the collective agreement and the Standards.
4. Seriously Arguable Case – Permanent Reinstatement: Applying s 125 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and the practicability and reasonableness test from C3 Limited v O'Brien [2024] NZEmpC 6, the Authority noted that whether reinstatement was practicable and reasonable would largely depend on the substantive outcome. Recent evidence from EQX's doctor suggested he might currently meet the Standards if reassessed, and that his OSA was being treated with a CPAP mask he could tolerate. KiwiRail's health and safety concern was addressed by the fact that EQX could only return to active duty if classified as Unconditional or Review under the Standards. The Authority found a seriously arguable case for permanent reinstatement.
5. Balance of Convenience: The Authority considered multiple factors. On the status quo point, it held the true status quo was EQX as an employee subject to the Standards, favouring EQX, not KiwiRail. There was no delay attributable to EQX; the application was lodged shortly after the internal communications were disclosed in March 2026. On damages adequacy, the Authority accepted that while lost wages could be compensated monetarily, ongoing stress from unemployment risked deterioration of EQX's health, potentially preventing permanent reinstatement — damages would not adequately remedy that. The health and safety risks cited by KiwiRail (relying on Smith v Fletcher Concrete & Infrastructure Ltd [2020] NZEmpC 125 and C3 Limited v O'Brien [2024] NZEmpC 6) were distinguished because EQX could only return to active duties upon meeting the Standards; unlike those cases, the risk was self-managing. The medical retirement payment did not prevent interim reinstatement, though it meant EQX could not rely on hardship. The balance of convenience was found to favour EQX, though not strongly.
6. Overall Justice: The Authority found that overall justice favoured EQX. KiwiRail's concern that reinstatement without completed assessments would undermine its compliance systems was addressed by the fact that EQX could only access those assessments and testing as a KiwiRail employee — interim reinstatement would bring him within that system rather than circumvent it.
7. Interim Reinstatement Order Conditions: The Authority declined to attach conditions to the interim reinstatement order, finding it unnecessary because the National Standards for Health Assessment of Rail Safety Workers would apply automatically, and the parties could co-operate to take appropriate steps under those standards. Attaching conditions that required the Authority to supervise the testing and assessment process would risk creating an interim mandatory injunction, which courts have been reluctant to make absent special circumstances.
8. Costs: Costs were reserved for later determination.

The application for interim reinstatement was upheld; the personal grievance claim on its merits is reserved for a substantive investigation meeting.

Interim reinstatement: EQX is to be reinstated to his position as a Container Terminal Operator by no later than Monday 15 June 2026, pending further order of the Authority and in reliance on EQX's undertaking in relation to damages dated 2 April 2026. No conditions were attached to the order. No monetary remedy ordered at this stage. Costs: reserved.

---

[COSTS ONLY]

Applicant: SYI (employee — name suppressed)
Respondent: Candoo Franchising Limited (employer)

Applicant: Allan Halse, advocate (firm not provided)
Respondent: No appearance

This is a costs-only determination following SYI's successful application for a compliance order against Candoo Franchising Limited in earlier proceedings ([2026] NZERA 250). Costs were reserved in the earlier determination, and Candoo failed to file any reply to SYI's costs submissions. The Authority awarded SYI $1,071.55 in costs and expenses.

SYI had previously succeeded in an application for a compliance order against Candoo Franchising Limited (see [2026] NZERA 250). Costs were reserved at the conclusion of those proceedings, with SYI directed to file submissions within 14 days and Candoo given a further 7 days to reply. SYI filed submissions claiming $1,500.00 in representation costs, $150.00 in unspecified disbursements, and $71.55 for a lodgement fee. Candoo filed nothing in response. The Authority proceeded to assess costs on the basis of SYI's submissions alone, noting the absence of detail about the actual costs incurred and charged to SYI.

1. Entitlement to Costs: Whether SYI, as the successful party, was entitled to an award of costs — [Established]
2. Quantum of Representation Costs: What amount of representation costs should be ordered, given the lack of detail about actual costs incurred — [Partially established]
3. Disbursements Claim: Whether the claimed disbursements of $150.00 should be allowed — [Dismissed]
4. Lodgement Fee: Whether the lodgement fee of $71.55 should be allowed — [Established]

1. Entitlement to Costs: As a matter of principle, a successful party is entitled to an award of costs. SYI succeeded in the underlying compliance order application and therefore the Authority accepted that costs should follow the event in SYI's favour.
2. Quantum of Representation Costs: The Authority noted it had not been provided with details of the actual costs incurred and charged to SYI, and it was unclear whether the claim was for indemnity costs. To avoid ordering costs exceeding those actually faced by SYI, the Authority exercised caution and reduced the claimed amount from $1,500.00 to $1,000.00.
3. Disbursements Claim: The claim for $150.00 in disbursements was disallowed because no details were provided about what those disbursements comprised, making it impossible for the Authority to assess their appropriateness.
4. Lodgement Fee: The Authority accepted that the lodgement fee of $71.55 was genuinely incurred and allowed this sum in full, adding it to the costs award.

The costs claim was partially upheld: SYI was awarded $1,071.55 in costs and expenses against Candoo Franchising Limited.

Costs awarded: $1,071.55 (comprising $1,000.00 representation costs and $71.55 lodgement fee). Disbursements claim of $150.00: disallowed. No other remedies ordered (this determination concerns costs only).

---

Applicant: Selwyn McDonald (employee)
Respondent: Traffica Roading Services Limited (employer)

Applicant: David Feist, advocate
Respondent: Sanjay Sharma, counsel

Selwyn McDonald, a concrete foreman, was summarily dismissed by Traffica's director during a heated on-site confrontation in May 2024. The Authority found the dismissal unjustified on procedural grounds — McDonald was given no proper opportunity to respond — but rejected his separate unjustified disadvantage claim based on alleged bullying in 2023. Remedies of $15,000 (humiliation) and $6,400 (lost wages) were awarded but reduced by 40% for McDonald's blameworthy conduct, yielding net payments of $9,000 and $3,800 respectively.

McDonald worked as a foreman for Traffica from May 2022 to April 2024. In April 2024 he was involved in a confrontation at a dairy near his worksite while in his Traffica uniform, resulting in a final written warning from director Bashir Ahmed that also noted anger management concerns and road rage incidents. A drug test taken at the same time returned a positive result for THC. On 14 May 2024, during an unplanned roadside conversation on the subdivision site, Ahmed raised ongoing concerns about McDonald's work and refusal to follow instructions; a heated exchange occurred and Ahmed dismissed McDonald on the spot, in front of colleagues including McDonald's son. McDonald claimed the dismissal was unjustified procedurally and also alleged he had been bullied by Ahmed in 2023 meetings about tools and equipment — a claim Ahmed denied. The Authority preferred Ahmed's account of the dismissal incident (including that McDonald made racially offensive comments) but found the summary process was nonetheless procedurally deficient.

1. Unjustified Dismissal: Whether Traffica's summary dismissal of McDonald met the s 103A test of what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances — [Established]
2. Unjustified Disadvantage: Whether McDonald was unjustifiably disadvantaged by Mr Ahmed's alleged aggressive/bullying behaviour during meetings in 2023 — [Dismissed]
3. Lost Wages: Whether McDonald is entitled to reimbursement of lost wages under ss 123 and 128 of the Act, and for what period — [Partially established]
4. Humiliation Compensation: Whether McDonald is entitled to compensation under s 123(1)(c)(i) for humiliation, loss of dignity, and injury to feelings — [Established]
5. Contribution Reduction: Whether any remedies awarded should be reduced under s 124 of the Act for McDonald's blameworthy contributory conduct — [Established]
6. Costs: Whether either party should contribute to the other's representation costs — [Not reached]

1. Unjustified Dismissal: The Authority applied the s 103A test, requiring that an employer sufficiently investigate, raise concerns, give the employee an opportunity to respond, and consider that response before dismissing. Ahmed dismissed McDonald on the spot during an informal roadside exchange, without any proper process. The Authority found this procedural failure was not minor and resulted in real unfairness, regardless of whether substantive grounds for dismissal may have existed. The personal grievance was established.
2. Unjustified Disadvantage: McDonald alleged that Ahmed had been aggressive toward him during 2023 meetings about tools and equipment. The Authority found McDonald had not established this on the balance of probabilities, noting Ahmed denied any aggressive behaviour and that McDonald had not raised it as a complaint at the time. The Authority found it more likely that McDonald's concurrent personal difficulties (family health issues, 2023 Auckland floods) were the true source of his stress, not workplace bullying.
3. Lost Wages: The Authority considered the counterfactual — how long McDonald would have remained employed but for the unjustified dismissal. Evidence from multiple Traffica witnesses showed mounting on-site tension stemming from McDonald's resistance to following inspector and management directions, a position McDonald maintained before the Authority. The Authority concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, McDonald would not have remained employed for more than a further month (citing Sam's Fukuyama Food Services Ltd v Zhang [2011] NZCA 608). At $40/hour for 40 hours/week, one month's lost wages was $6,400 gross (before contribution reduction).
4. Humiliation Compensation: Applying the principles in Richora Group Ltd v Cheng [2018] NZEmpC 113, the Authority assessed the harm caused by the abrupt, public dismissal, which occurred in front of colleagues and McDonald's son. McDonald was required to walk back through the worksite to retrieve his tools, and word of the dismissal spread through the industry via truck drivers present. McDonald's personal vulnerabilities at the time were known to Ahmed. The Authority found an award of $15,000 was just before any reduction.
5. Contribution Reduction: Under s 124, the Authority must consider the extent to which the employee's own blameworthy actions contributed to the situation giving rise to the grievance. The Authority found McDonald's comments to Ahmed (racially offensive language) were seriously blameworthy and materially undermined trust in the employment relationship. Referring to Maddigan v Director-General of Conservation [2019] NZEmpC 190 and Xtreme Dining Limited t/a Think Steel v Dewar [2016] NZEmpC 136, the Authority applied a 40% reduction to all remedies, reducing the humiliation award from $15,000 to $9,000 and lost wages from $6,400 to $3,800.
6. Costs: Costs were reserved. The parties were encouraged to resolve costs between themselves. If not resolved, McDonald may lodge a memorandum on costs within 28 days, with Traffica having 14 days to reply. The Authority indicated it would apply its usual notional daily rate absent special circumstances.

The claim was partially upheld: unjustified dismissal established and remedies awarded with a 40% contribution reduction; unjustified disadvantage claim dismissed.

- Humiliation/distress compensation (s 123(1)(c)(i)): $15,000 gross, reduced by 40% to $9,000
- Lost wages (s 128): $6,400 gross (one month), reduced by 40% to $3,800 gross
- Contributory reduction: 40% applied to all remedies — McDonald's racially offensive comments to Ahmed found to be seriously blameworthy and materially undermining of the employment relationship
- Penalties: None ordered
- Reinstatement: Not sought/not ordered
- Costs: Reserved

---

[COSTS ONLY]

Applicant: Macfarlane Seymour (employee)
Respondent: Hilton Haulage Limited (employer)

Applicant: Itania Nikolai, advocate
Respondent: David Traylor, counsel

This is a costs-only determination following a substantive decision ([2026] NZERA 290, dated 11 May 2026) in which Mr Seymour's claim of unjustified disadvantage against Hilton Haulage Limited was dismissed. Costs had been reserved in the hope the parties would settle the issue themselves, but they could not agree. The Authority awarded Hilton $8,500 in costs, a partial uplift above the standard notional daily tariff of $6,250 for a one-and-a-half-day investigation meeting.

Mr Seymour brought a personal grievance claim of unjustified disadvantage against Hilton Haulage Limited, which was dismissed in a substantive determination dated 11 May 2026. The investigation meeting ran for one and a half days. Costs were reserved at that stage. Both parties subsequently filed submissions on costs. Hilton sought $16,000 on the basis that actual costs exceeded that figure and that the Applicant's conduct during proceedings caused additional work. Mr Seymour's advocate argued the claim was brought in good faith and that ordinary amendments to pleadings do not justify an uplift.

1. Costs Award: Whether costs should be awarded to the successful respondent, and at what level — [Established]
2. Costs Uplift: Whether circumstances justified an uplift above the notional daily tariff rate — [Partially established]
3. Financial Hardship: Whether Mr Seymour's alleged financial hardship should reduce or affect the costs order — [Dismissed]

1. Costs Award: The Authority applied the well-settled principles in PBO Limited (formerly Rush Security Ltd) v Da Cruz [2005] 1 ERNZ 808, confirming that costs are discretionary, follow the event, and should be modest and reasonable rather than punitive. As the respondent was the successful party, it was entitled to a costs contribution. The Authority ordered Mr Seymour to pay $8,500 pursuant to clause 15 of Schedule 2 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
2. Costs Uplift: Hilton sought $16,000, arguing that the Applicant's ambiguous pleadings (despite two amended Statements of Problem), the advocate's dual role as witness and advocate, fictitious legal references in correspondence, a last-minute support person issue before the second day, and misrepresentations and novel issues in closing submissions all caused additional costs. The Authority accepted that the lack of clarity in the Applicant's claims did cause additional costs to some extent, justifying a partial uplift. However, the full amount sought was not granted; the Authority set costs at $8,500, above the notional tariff of $6,250 for a one-and-a-half-day hearing but well below the $16,000 claimed.
3. Financial Hardship: Mr Seymour's advocate submitted he had suffered reduced income and financial hardship following the events that gave rise to the proceedings. The Authority noted that no supporting evidence of financial hardship had been provided, and accordingly did not reduce the costs order on that basis. However, the Authority reserved leave for the parties to revert if Mr Seymour wished to provide such evidence and seek an instalment arrangement with Hilton's agreement.

The claim for costs was partially upheld: Hilton was awarded $8,500 in costs, representing a partial uplift above the standard tariff but significantly below the amount claimed.

Costs: $8,500 ordered against the Applicant (Mr Seymour) in favour of the Respondent (Hilton Haulage Limited), pursuant to clause 15 of Schedule 2 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Leave reserved for parties to revert to the Authority regarding instalment arrangements if agreed upon and subsequently not adhered to. No other remedies ordered.

---